ADDITIONAL BATCH 7 (SORRY GUYS)
1377/FIELDMAN vs SONGCO/CBRFACTS: Federico Songco of Floridablanca, Pampanga, a man of scant education being only a first grader ..., owned a private jeepney for the year 1960. On September 15, 1960, he was induced by Fieldmen's Insurance Company Pampanga agent Benjamin Sambat to apply for a Common Carrier's Liability Insurance Policy covering his motor vehicle ... Upon paying an annual premium of P16.50, defendant Fieldmen's Insurance Company, Inc. issued on September 19, 1960, Common Carriers Accident Insurance Policy... the duration of which will be for one (1) year, effective September 15, 1960 to September 15, 1961. On September 22, 1961, upon payment of the corresponding premium, the company renewed the policy by extending the coverage from October 15, 1961 to October 15, 1962. This time Federico Songco's private jeepney carried Plate No. J-68136-Pampanga-1961. On October 29, 1961, during the effectivity of the renewed policy, the insured vehicle while being driven by Rodolfo Songco, a duly licensed driver and son of Federico (the vehicle owner) collided with a car in the municipality of Calumpit, province of Bulacan, as a result of which mishap Federico Songco (father) and Rodolfo Songco (son) died, Carlos Songco (another son), the latter's wife, Angelita Songco, and a family friend by the name of Jose Manuel sustained physical injuries of varying degree." 1 Amor Songco, son of deceased Federico Songco, declared that when insurance agent Benjamin Sambat was inducing his father to insure his vehicle, he butted in saying: 'That cannot be, Mr. Sambat, because our vehicle is an "owner" private vehicle and not for passengers,' to which agent Sambat replied: 'whether our vehicle was an "owner" type or for passengers it could be insured because their company is not owned by the Government and the Government has nothing to do with their company. So they could do what they please whenever they believe a vehicle is...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...BLADE INC. CASE
1. What are the advantages Blades could gain from importing from and/or exporting to a foreign country such as Thailand? Ans: The advantages Blades could gain from importing from and/or exporting to Thailand could be Decrease their cost of goods sold, and increase Blades’ net income since rubber and plastic are cheaper when imported from a foreign country such as Thailand. Due to its superior production process Thai firms could not duplicate the high-quality production process , so establishing a subsidiary in Thailand would preserve blade sales before Thai competitors. Allow Blades to explore the option of exporting to Thailand by building relationships with some local suppliers. As far as exporting is concerned, Blades could become the first firm to seller roller Blades in Thailand. Diversify their investment by opening option to export to other countries beyond Thailand to ensure company sustainability.
2. What are some of the disadvantages Blades could face as a result of foreign trade in the short run? In the long run?
Ans: The disadvantages Blades could face as a result of foreign trade in the short run are: Exchange rate risk. Blades would be exposed to currency fluctuation in the Thai baht if importation cost increase without Thai suppliers adjusting their price. International economic condition; if Thailand’s economy undergoes recession, Blades would suffer from sales decrease in Thailand. In the long run,...

...Merck & Co., Inc. Case
If one hold a key to resolve a very serious problem, one has a responsibility to put an effort to make it happen, at least try one’s best. In this case, river blindness disease was a very serious problem, and Dr. Vagelos was the one who could make a decision as to whether the research and development of a human version of ivermectin should be carried on, then it was his responsibility to pursue it.
Caused by a parasitic worm carried by a tiny black fly, the disease brought about visual impairment and skin lesions to millions of people. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated in 1978 that some 340,000 people were blind because of onchocerciasis, and that a million more were suffered from various degrees of visual impairment. At the time, 18 million or more people were infected with the parasite, though half did not yet have serious symptoms (Donaldson &amp; Werhane, 2008). Although the disease was first identified in 1893, there had not been a success in producing a drug that could vanquish it until Dr. Campbell’s promising recent discovery.
Technically, it is not Vegalos’s direct responsibility to pursue the research and development (R&amp;D) toward a treatment for river blindness. That is, he has no obligation to see this project through nor will he be punished in light of his refusal to the research. Even if he did decide to ditch the R&amp;D of human version of...

...NAVARRO vs. VILLEGAS
G.R. No. L-31687 February 26, 1970
NAVARRO, petitioner,
vs.
CITY MAYOR ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
GENTLEMEN:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court of even date:
"In Case G.R. No. L-31687 (Navarro vs. Villegas), the Court, after considering the pleadings and arguments of the parties, issued the following Resolution:
Without prejudice to a more extended opinion and taking into account the following considerations:
That respondent Mayor has not denied nor absolutely refused the permit sought by petitioner;
That as stated in Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 75, respondent Mayor possesses reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used for the assembly in order to secure convenient use thereof by others and provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risks of disorder and maintain public safety and order;
That respondent Mayor has expressly stated his willingness to grant permits for peaceful assemblies at Plaza Miranda during Saturdays, Sundays and holidays when they would not cause unnecessarily great disruption of the normal activities of the community and has further offered Sunken Gardens as an alternative to Plaza Miranda as the site of the demonstration sought to be held this afternoon;
That experiences in connection with present assemblies and demonstrations do not warrant...

...De Havilland Inc. Case Report
Date of submission: February 2, 2010
Executive Summary:
Marton’s suitability as a Vendor for De Havilland must first prove that its proposal is realistic in price and does not lack any important elements to efficiently supply the flap shrouds and equipment bay doors to De Havilland. Once that is clarified, De Havilland must ensure that Marton’s is a viable entity that can perform its duties on a long term basis, provide the necessary warranties and guarantees as well as perform to the service levels De Havilland is receiving from their current supplier. In order to not jeopardize any production levels at De Havilland it is recommended that De Havilland use both, their current supplier Dollard Plastics and Marton enterprise (or any new Supplier), for the procurement of flap shrouders and equipment bay doors for a period of one year. Marton Enterprise can be slowly introduced with orders for a period of 12 months and if KPI’s are met, Marton Enterprise would then be fully accepted as a Supplier for De Havilland.
Statement of Issue:
De Havilland has a very systematic approach with its procurement process, one that prepares the negotiating team with a solid background of the marketplace and information that helps ensure the corporation leaves no stone unturned with its...

...The current problem with the De Havilland INC. case is awarding the bid to Marton who did not present their financial analysis as instructed in the bid. They came in with the lowest bid, which can be either a tactic just to get business and they hike their prices later, or they actually are that good at what they do. The decision has been made to go with Marton because of their lower prices and we will be able to see their financials when we do a site visit to their facility.
One of the issues with this process is that De Havilland has lost some of the control in the bid process since Marton as put a time limit on the decision of 120 days. This makes it difficult for De Havilland to be able to negotiate with the other companies that came in slightly higher than Marton. It seems as though Marton doesn’t have as much to lose as Marton, which is clearly evident in what Dollard Plastics has been charging compared to what Marton is offering.
De Havilland is trying to lower costs and get a five year fixed rate contract with the winning company in order to eliminate constant contract negotiations. The financials of Devon were looked as since they are the parent company of Marton and are publicly traded. Marton submitted invoices on billing material and unit cost break downs, which makes one wonder what they are hiding.
The recommendation is to go with Marton and do a full audit of their...

...CASE TITLE: Jessie Ching v. William Salinas, Sr., William Salinas, Jr., Josephine Salinas, Jennifer Salinas, Alonto Solaiman Salle, John Eric Salinas, Noel Yabut (Board of Directors and Officers of WILAWARE PROUDCT CORPORATION) PETITIONER’S CLAIMS: Petitioner’s insisted that his works are covered by Sections 172.1 and 172.2 of the Intellectual Property Code and that the copyright certificates issued by the National Library are prima facie evidence of its validity, citing the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals in one of its cases. He claims that the IPC provides in no uncertain terms that copyright protection automatically attaches to a work by the sole fact of its creation, irrespective of its mode or form of expression, as well as of its content, quality or purpose. As such, the petitioner insists, notwithstanding the classification of the works as either literary and/or artistic, the said law, likewise, encompasses works which may have a bearing on the utility aspect to which the petitioner’s utility designs were classified. Moreover, according to the petitioner, what the Copyright Law protects is the author’s intellectual creation, regardless of whether it is one with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on n industrial scale. The petitioner also maintains that the law does not provide that the intended use or use in industry of an article eligible for patent bars or invalidates its registration under...

...AGENCY, PARTNERSHIP AND TRUSTS DIGESTS (2013 – 2014)
ATTY. JOAQUIN OBIETA
G.R. No. L-45441 MORA ELECTRIC CO. vs. MATIC
June 26, 1939
J.:
Petitioner:
Mora Electric Co., Inc.
Respondents:
Paulino Matic and Benita Quiogue Vda. Del Rosario ISSUE:
FACTS:
Matic obtained from Manila City a concession to provide the lighting system of Manila cemeteries on All Souls’ Day of 1934. The amount was P8,773 to be guaranteed by Luzon Surety Co. Matic then authorized Quiogue to contract with Mora Electric Co., Inc. for the installation materials and labor, and that both are under the duty to pay P8,773 to the City of Manila (which Mora Electric was to take from the payment made to it by Matic and Quiogue).
When the business failed, the parties did not pay the amount due to the City. Luzon Surety had to pay the said amount, and so it filed a suit of recovery against Matic and Quiogue. Both respondents also filed an action against Mora to recover the P8,773 from the latter.
The CFI and the Court of Appeals sentenced Mora Electric to pay the amount with interest. Mora then filed this petition for review on certiorari.
W/N Mora Electric is liable to pay the City of Manila as stipulated in its contract with Matic and Quiogue.
HELD: Yes, Mora Electric is liable.
RATIO: The Court of Appeals decided that, since petitioner bound itself to...

...the land where it maintains and operates a garage for its TPU motor trucks, a repair shop, blacksmith and carpentry shops, and with these machineries, which are placed therein. Respondent City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City assessed at P4,400 petitioner's above-mentioned equipment. Petitioner appealed the assessment to the respondent Board of Tax Appeals on the ground that the same are not realty. Respondents contend that said equipments, though movable, are immobilized by destination, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article415 of the New Civil Code.
ISSUE:
Whether the equipment in question are immovable or movable properties.
HELD:
The equipment in question are movable. So that movable equipment to be immobilized in contemplation of the law, it must first be "essential and principal elements" of an industry or works without which such industry or works would be "unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose forw hich it was established." Thus, the Court distinguished those movable which become immobilized by destination because they are essential and principal elements in the industry from those which may not be so considered immobilized because they are merely incidental, not essential and principal. The tools and equipment in question in this instant case are, by their nature, not essential and principle municipal elements of petitioner's business of transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. They are merely...